BuzzerBeater Forums

At the moment i am not sure whats more disappointing, the S37 news or the lack of communication of the people responsible for them. EGM Foto is (aside from Manon in some niche topics) the only one available for discussion and both of them prefer to abandon certain topics once the weight of arguments tilts against the proposed changes.

I haven't abandoned any topic, I've explained my point of view in almost all of them and continue reading until I think I have something to write.
I am not sure about how to measure the weight of arguments you mention, since we have different conclusions with the same data. I've just seen some different opinions as respectable as mine, but my conclussions are not the same as the ones you have.
On the other hand, if one user's idea seems interesting, it's not a bad idea to let other users discuse it before any of us gives staff point of view.

In case you or Manon (283856.147) somehow misinterpreted the post you are quoting. i was mentioning you as a positive example and your contribution is highly appreciated.

We dont agree on the salary measure but thats acceptable, giving your opinion is fair enough (even though you did not provide an example to strengthen your point of view ;)
I was just not refering to this topic but various other left-open-discussions e.g. the one Gully Foyle quoted or the general economics one in the 25M thread.

Last edited by Robard at 12/15/2016 4:44:29 AM

I agree.

The fundamental problem BB has these days is the old and inflexible training system.
Once your manager pool declines and you restrict FA, you need to balance supply of new players by adjusting the training system which was not done. Tinkering on demand side is always limited. (ask the European Central Bank ;)
Your proposed action will not change much (please read (283856.120))

Once your economy shifts into inflation a cascade of side effects starts rolling:
1. Players will save more money to buy more players, hence average league salary drops, more money is injected into the economy every week, fuelling further inflation.
2. Because the average league income increases, the competitive advantage in terms of weekly income of new users declines as they face managers with large arenas and a cheap (close to salary floor) and competitive (as all teams are close to salary floor) team having the same monthly income as the new users have with their incompetitive crap teams.
The time new users need to level up is increased, so they leave and the shrink of users continues.
3. With shrinking average roster salary, the competitive situation in all leagues declines, particularly in the top league.
The championship bonus in home game revenue is now a much higher percentage of total salary than some seasons ago, making title defense much easier. Saving money for title runs has been discouraged. Most teams in top leagues are salary-floor-tanking, few compete. (German Bundesliga has become incredibly boring)
4. The current training system encourages tanking (was mentioned here few posts up (283856.144))

A change in training has been proposed for years now (abundant and persistent e.g. by the late wolph) and yet nothing changed.

Last edited by Robard at 12/15/2016 4:40:12 AM

1. You did add some salary on LI guards, some more on high TSP but to balance it out i appears that A skills got slightly cheaper.
Since the number of players with a raise is probably smaller than the number of players with a decrease, i think Gully Foyle means that the average salary by player decreased (or in other words, the sum of total salary for all players).

2. So the draft change increases the average TSP, not the potential?
So we can expect almost all players to have 5 skill balls in this seasons scouting? (you did not change that after the 19 yo were improved)
To be honest, i would vastly prefer a training system that could cap a drafted 45 TSP MVP within reasonable time than the current system with a uniform 60 TSP for all 18 yo and 70 TSP for all 19 yo draftees (just an exaggeration).

3. I am aware that this was a bit harsh thats why the next sentence after the part you quoted qualified my comment.

Thanks for the clarification.
5 skill balls for everyone ;)

Having a flood of draftees with better TSP will probably not increase the total number of trained players IMHO, just decrease the price for decent mid-potential players which is quite low already compared with trained players.

Well, I've seen too many teams being incapable of promoting again after they demote

And if you did read the forums in the past you will know that the people who used the term "yo-yo strategy" and complained about this were from the largest nation in BB...I'd imagine that the smaller the nation the easier this would be.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/15/2016 7:44:01 AM

What counts for managers is the salary increase in absolute numbers, not the percentage.
If a OD 20 IS 20 LI guard with 40k salary has a 10% salary increase that amounts to 4k.
An high TSP player like Julian Kröll had a salary hike of 24k due to the change.
Problem: he is no LI guard but a balanced SF you need for variable tactics including outside ones, the same teams that also need PA on bigs (for e.g. motion)

My point is: high TSP players are hit most by the change, LI guards still have a low salary.
You did not provide an example to show thats not true.

To the promotion change:
If 10 teams in a D1 are close to salary floor you have a decent chance to prevent demotion regardless of the change.
They will earn much more money than a D2 team so promotion is easier, particularly with the change as this cuts both ways (you might have overlooked that).